Which people do you think I'm accusing of killing? (Murder is usually reserved to the killing of an human being.) If you meant some of the people who work in a slaughterhouse... then you don't think it's helpful to point out these actions, along with seeing which conditions are supporting them?

I should of be more precise here sorry! I meant this is something which does happened if you look at this or the great rebirth thread. eating meat is so closely connected to the actual livelihood it is made tantamount to doing the killing oneself.but to frame something as wrong livelihood is appropriate, when it is livelihood under discussion.

I'd like to go back to what you said earlier on, but to look at from a bit different viewpoint:

Cittasanto wrote:There is a connection on a Business plan level, i.e. the level in which we have no say or control.

Why "Business" with a capital letter?

no particular reason. I do sometimes capital letters without realising (particularly if I stop and start for some reason) and lower case them later when I see.

Do you see it as some sort of a self-sustaining entity, that exists apart from people? How is that different from the way the priests used "Brahma," as a way of telling their people that they don't have any say or control over what conditions they're born into? I think that is exactly the sort of view on Kamma that the Buddha refuted.

no, not self sustaining, however when I say "Everyone needs to decide for themselves what is practicable for their circumstances." I mean it, everyone has different requirement due to internal and external circumstances; having a particular diet maybe suitable for some yet for others it is not healthy (Take wheat, gluten, or coffee as an example, I can eat and drink pretty much as much as I like yet I know people who would be on the floor shaking and in pain.

but just to pull back what I initially said

But in my opinion section 13 does show we are not responsible for future actions, after the fact, for our intent to buy food. It is our intention that matters not another's possible actions.

He who knows only his own side of the case knows little of that. His reasons may be good, and no one may have been able to refute them. But if he is equally unable to refute the reasons on the opposite side, if he does not so much as know what they are, he has no ground for preferring either opinion … ...He must be able to hear them from persons who actually believe them … he must know them in their most plausible and persuasive form.John Stuart Mill

LonesomeYogurt wrote:Reminds me of this gem I found a while ago on a Muslim site:

‎"The pig is the most shameless animal on the face of the earth. It is the only animal that invites its friends to have sex with its mate. It feels no jealousy. And among people who consume pork, the practice of wife swapping and other forms of promiscuous behavior is common."

Probably not a good time then to rave about my favorite Thanksgiving turkey presentation:

BB

Author of Redneck Buddhism: or Will You Reincarnate as Your Own Cousin?

But in my opinion section 13 does show we are not responsible for future actions, after the fact, for our intent to buy food. It is our intention that matters not another's possible actions.

If you meant this:

13. At that time a great number of Niganthas (running) through Vesâlî, from road to road and from cross-way to cross-way, with outstretched arms, cried: 'To-day Sîha, the general, has killed a great ox and has made a meal for the Samana Gotama; the Samana Gotama knowingly eats this meat of an animal killed for this very purpose, and has thus become virtually the author of that deed (of killing the animal)!' [my note here - this is a false accusation]

Then a certain man went to the place where Sîha, the general, was. Having approached him he said to Sîha, the general, into his ear: 'Please, Lord, have you noticed that a great number of Niganthas (running) through Vesâlî, &c.?'

'Do not mind it, my good Sir. Long since those venerable brethren are trying to discredit the Buddha, the Dhamma, and the Samgha; and those venerable brethren do not become tired of telling false, idle, vain lies of the Blessed One. Not for our life would we ever intentionally kill a living being.'

That is not the sort of inference that I would draw from it... he's just refuting the Niganthas' assertion that he killed an animal, and that the Buddha ate it while knowing it was killed for him. That's it.

Your assertion that we are not responsible for future actions, nor would have any part in another's actions, are not even shown within this selection... also, I don't see how drawing these kinds of inference could be useful for our practices.

But in my opinion section 13 does show we are not responsible for future actions, after the fact, for our intent to buy food. It is our intention that matters not another's possible actions.

If you meant this:

13. At that time a great number of Niganthas (running) through Vesâlî, from road to road and from cross-way to cross-way, with outstretched arms, cried: 'To-day Sîha, the general, has killed a great ox and has made a meal for the Samana Gotama; the Samana Gotama knowingly eats this meat of an animal killed for this very purpose, and has thus become virtually the author of that deed (of killing the animal)!' [my note here - this is a false accusation]

Then a certain man went to the place where Sîha, the general, was. Having approached him he said to Sîha, the general, into his ear: 'Please, Lord, have you noticed that a great number of Niganthas (running) through Vesâlî, &c.?'

'Do not mind it, my good Sir. Long since those venerable brethren are trying to discredit the Buddha, the Dhamma, and the Samgha; and those venerable brethren do not become tired of telling false, idle, vain lies of the Blessed One. Not for our life would we ever intentionally kill a living being.'

That is not the sort of inference that I would draw from it... he's just refuting the Niganthas' assertion that he killed an animal, and that the Buddha ate it while knowing it was killed for him. That's it.

Your assertion that we are not responsible for future actions, nor would have any part in another's actions, are not even shown within this selection... also, I don't see how drawing these kinds of inference could be useful for our practices.

Reading section 12 - also quoted previously - shows it was bought for, not killed for the Buddha. if the animals had been killed specifically for the group General Siha would not of be able to say "Not for our life would we ever intentionally kill a living being". Considering within Buddhism ordering a beings death is the same as killing it by oneself as shown in several place, most obviously Parajika 3.

We can not control what others do with the information they have, I used to go to my local pub every day for lunch and ordered the same thing at the same time every day except thursdays and sundays. One day I had a late lunch and the land lady had still prepared my food and drink for me, I couldn't control her decision even though I had said that I would not always be there at the same time everyday a number of times. We have to know what we can and can not control otherwise we are running around trying to control things we have no control over, and not doing what needs to be done, which happens to be sorting ourselves out.

He who knows only his own side of the case knows little of that. His reasons may be good, and no one may have been able to refute them. But if he is equally unable to refute the reasons on the opposite side, if he does not so much as know what they are, he has no ground for preferring either opinion … ...He must be able to hear them from persons who actually believe them … he must know them in their most plausible and persuasive form.John Stuart Mill

Hi allI am moved by the compassion for animal in this forum. This is such a complex issue. I have some experience in marketing and consumer behaviour. The assumption made by most of us in this forum is that animals are killed mainly for meat consumption. This is not true. Take for example sheep. Due to surge in Ugg boots demand (new fashion), the value of sheep skins has gone up higher than the value of meat. Meat is only a by product. Consider the animal killed for sciencetific research. What about the killing of Silk worms. More animals are killed in the roads by motorist. Buddha had set the highest standard that is not to kill. Once you kill, it is irrelevant what you will do with the carcass. You can bury it, eat it, cremate it or do whatever you want to do with it. However when it come to animal cruelty I do not hold the same view. Which is somewhat can be avoided. I still believe we should continue to educate people not to kill.There are health benefits for not eating too much. I think we all should resolve to eat one main meal a day preferably avoiding the night meal (I can’t do this yet. But I am thinking about it)My vote is for "Do not eat meat" ( I am still working towards it)

True, at least in the case of humans and animals. But the real questions are: do we approve of this fact? Do we use it as an open license to inflict additional suffering on others (directly or indirectly), as Hitler used to ["Nature is cruel; therefore we are also entitled to be cruel."]? Are we really doing what we can reasonably do to minimize their suffering?

Last edited by Sekha on Tue Nov 20, 2012 2:45 am, edited 3 times in total.

Ben wrote:No where, in the Tipitaka did the Buddha advocate for vegetarianism for the sangha nor the laity.

Exact. But he advocated to be "friendly and compassionate towards all living beings". Everyone uses one's own wisdom to apply this guideline. Some may find it relevant not to buy meat, others might find it irrelevant. I think the Buddha wanted us to discuss the issue, and he wanted everyone of us to follow what he sees fit for himself:

'I am the owner of my actions, heir to my actions, born of my actions, related through my actions, and have my actions as my arbitrator. Whatever I do, for good or for evil, to that will I fall heir.'

Last edited by Sekha on Tue Nov 20, 2012 2:49 am, edited 1 time in total.

Cittasanto wrote:Reading section 12 - also quoted previously - shows it was bought for, not killed for the Buddha. if the animals had been killed specifically for the group General Siha would not of be able to say "Not for our life would we ever intentionally kill a living being".

To me, the entry talks more about Nigantha's behavior towards others, or their mistaken perception of the killing, than to show that there's no relationship at all in between the meat and the death of an animal. I think that this would have to be based on a mistaken perception, also.

I agree that it's wrong to accuse someone who bought the meat of killing... but it's also wrong to say that this has no relationship at all to the killing of the animals (if there was)... which if you read your selection carefully, it said nothing about. (Quite rightly, I think.) To get the kind of interpretation that you did from the selection, I think there has to be some underlying motivation.

I know that you mentioned somewhere before that you don't buy or eat meat? (Maybe I remembered wrong.) So maybe your motivation has something more to do with defending the person who taught you that interpretation, or maybe it's to do with the (well-intentioned) defending of the people who still eat meat... but it seems to me like there is some overreaching that is happening here (i.e., trying to deny that there's no relationship at all, in between one action and the other).

We can not control what others do with the information they have, I used to go to my local pub every day for lunch and ordered the same thing at the same time every day except thursdays and sundays. One day I had a late lunch and the land lady had still prepared my food and drink for me, I couldn't control her decision even though I had said that I would not always be there at the same time everyday a number of times. We have to know what we can and can not control otherwise we are running around trying to control things we have no control over, and not doing what needs to be done, which happens to be sorting ourselves out.

How long will this woman continue to make you lunch if you stopped going to her pub? The kamma isn't just speech or thought (like for example, telling her not to make you lunch, or hoping that she will not make you one)... it's also action.

I think that you maybe see the woman as a self-functioning entity, existing apart from the conditions around her... much in the same way that you viewed the Business, where you said that people have no control over it. That is a wrong view of kamma.

Cittasanto wrote:Reading section 12 - also quoted previously - shows it was bought for, not killed for the Buddha. if the animals had been killed specifically for the group General Siha would not of be able to say "Not for our life would we ever intentionally kill a living being".

To me, the entry talks more about Nigantha's behavior towards others, or their mistaken perception of the killing, than to show that there's no relationship at all in between the meat and the death of an animal. I think that this would have to be based on a mistaken perception, also.

Certainly the rules came about as a response, although it still does not say that the animal was killed specifically for anyone. However, there being a lack of Kammic responsibility and there being no relation are two different things. we are at the end of the day responsible for our own actions, not those of others, and as a result this lack of kammic responsibility is clearly shown in the passage.

Upajjhatthana Sutta AN5.57 wrote:"'I am the owner of my actions, heir to my actions, born of my actions, related through my actions, and have my actions as my arbitrator. Whatever I do, for good or for evil, to that will I fall heir.' ...

I agree that it's wrong to accuse someone who bought the meat of killing... but it's also wrong to say that this has no relationship at all to the killing of the animals (if there was)... which if you read your selection carefully, it said nothing about. (Quite rightly, I think.) To get the kind of interpretation that you did from the selection, I think there has to be some underlying motivation.

Do note I am not arguing there is no relationship at all, and have clearly said there is. but on the Kammic level the responsibility is not ours. or following the logic that a relationship = kammic responsibility means eating a vegetarian or vegan diet has a far share of death to account for (as tilt noted earlier).

I know that you mentioned somewhere before that you don't buy or eat meat? (Maybe I remembered wrong.) So maybe your motivation has something more to do with defending the person who taught you that interpretation, or maybe it's to do with the (well-intentioned) defending of the people who still eat meat... but it seems to me like there is some overreaching that is happening here (i.e., trying to deny that there's no relationship at all, in between one action and the other).

approximately correct, but my motivation is not up for debate.and I have addressed the rest above.

We can not control what others do with the information they have, I used to go to my local pub every day for lunch and ordered the same thing at the same time every day except thursdays and sundays. One day I had a late lunch and the land lady had still prepared my food and drink for me, I couldn't control her decision even though I had said that I would not always be there at the same time everyday a number of times. We have to know what we can and can not control otherwise we are running around trying to control things we have no control over, and not doing what needs to be done, which happens to be sorting ourselves out.

How long will this woman continue to make you lunch if you stopped going to her pub? The kamma isn't just speech or thought (like for example, telling her not to make you lunch, or hoping that she will not make you one)... it's also action.

That was up to her, my responsibility was fulfilled to the best of my ability (do note the past tense).

I think that you maybe see the woman as a self-functioning entity, existing apart from the conditions around her... much in the same way that you viewed the Business, where you said that people have no control over it. That is a wrong view of kamma.

it is funny how you are twisting the example of being responsible of our own actions, not the actions of others!do you personally tell the shop you use to order X,Y, & Z so you can buy it next time you go in? or do they predict they will need a certain amount and buy what they believe will sell and last until the next order?

He who knows only his own side of the case knows little of that. His reasons may be good, and no one may have been able to refute them. But if he is equally unable to refute the reasons on the opposite side, if he does not so much as know what they are, he has no ground for preferring either opinion … ...He must be able to hear them from persons who actually believe them … he must know them in their most plausible and persuasive form.John Stuart Mill

I think that you maybe see the woman as a self-functioning entity, existing apart from the conditions around her... much in the same way that you viewed the Business, where you said that people have no control over it. That is a wrong view of kamma.

it is funny how you are twisting the example of being responsible of our own actions, not the actions of others!do you personally tell the shop you use to order X,Y, & Z so you can buy it next time you go in? or do they predict they will need a certain amount and buy what they believe will sell and last until the next order?

I think it's more to do with the kamma and its fruits, not that it's my/your kamma vs. others' kamma... look at this quote from the Udana for example:

Ud 6.6

People are intent on the idea of 'made by me'and attached to the idea of 'made by another.'Some do not realize this,nor do they see it as a thorn.But to one who sees,having extracted this thorn,(the thought) 'I am doing,' doesn't occur;'Another is doing,' doesn't occur.This human race is possessed by conceit, bound by conceit, tied down by conceit.Speaking hurtfully because of their viewsthey do not go beyond wandering-on.

I have not said we are isolated. particularly when I answered the same question earlier.

beeblebrox wrote:

Cittasanto wrote:

I think that you maybe see the woman as a self-functioning entity, existing apart from the conditions around her... much in the same way that you viewed the Business, where you said that people have no control over it. That is a wrong view of kamma.

it is funny how you are twisting the example of being responsible of our own actions, not the actions of others!do you personally tell the shop you use to order X,Y, & Z so you can buy it next time you go in? or do they predict they will need a certain amount and buy what they believe will sell and last until the next order?

I think it's more to do with the kamma and its fruits, not that it's my/your kamma vs. others' kamma... look at this quote from the Udana for example:

Ud 6.6

People are intent on the idea of 'made by me'and attached to the idea of 'made by another.'Some do not realize this,nor do they see it as a thorn.But to one who sees,having extracted this thorn,(the thought) 'I am doing,' doesn't occur;'Another is doing,' doesn't occur.This human race is possessed by conceit, bound by conceit, tied down by conceit.Speaking hurtfully because of their viewsthey do not go beyond wandering-on.

He who knows only his own side of the case knows little of that. His reasons may be good, and no one may have been able to refute them. But if he is equally unable to refute the reasons on the opposite side, if he does not so much as know what they are, he has no ground for preferring either opinion … ...He must be able to hear them from persons who actually believe them … he must know them in their most plausible and persuasive form.John Stuart Mill

Mr Man wrote:To imagine the the eating of meat is not inextricably interlinked with the killing of animals is denial on the most giant of scales.

You do agree with this then?

With regard to Kamma - It is said to be an imponderable. The exact ins and outs of cause and effect are something that we can't get our head around. We can abdicate responsibility but this in itself is another act, which will have an outcome. The idea of using the Buddha's teaching to justify our action is, in my opinion, unfair (even if we have gone for refuge/keep precepts).

That there is killing involved in the production of a vegetarian diet is really just an irrelevance.

Now what we don't know, because kamma is an imponderable, is how positive/negative the impact of eating meat is and that is possibly why Sekha "wants to put all the odds on his side". Sekha's reasoning leads him to suspect that it is negative or inappropriate. If your reasoning tells you otherwise so be it.

Mr Man wrote:To imagine the the eating of meat is not inextricably interlinked with the killing of animals is denial on the most giant of scales.

You do agree with this then?

already answered.

With regard to Kamma - It is said to be an imponderable. The exact ins and outs of cause and effect are something that we can't get our head around. We can abdicate responsibility but this in itself is another act, which will have an outcome. The idea of using the Buddha's teaching to justify our action is, in my opinion, unfair (even if we have gone for refuge/keep precepts).

the working of Kamma yes, but we do know our intentions. how these pan out is another matter.

That there is killing involved in the production of a vegetarian diet is really just an irrelevance.

so vegetarians can have it both ways?

Now what we don't know, because kamma is an imponderable, is how positive/negative the impact of eating meat is and that is possibly why Sekha "wants to put all the odds on his side". Sekha's reasoning leads him to suspect that it is negative or inappropriate. If your reasoning tells you otherwise so be it.

and if you read what I have previously said on the matter, "it is a personal choice." However if you try to say something is only one way when it is clearly not black and white.

He who knows only his own side of the case knows little of that. His reasons may be good, and no one may have been able to refute them. But if he is equally unable to refute the reasons on the opposite side, if he does not so much as know what they are, he has no ground for preferring either opinion … ...He must be able to hear them from persons who actually believe them … he must know them in their most plausible and persuasive form.John Stuart Mill

He who knows only his own side of the case knows little of that. His reasons may be good, and no one may have been able to refute them. But if he is equally unable to refute the reasons on the opposite side, if he does not so much as know what they are, he has no ground for preferring either opinion … ...He must be able to hear them from persons who actually believe them … he must know them in their most plausible and persuasive form.John Stuart Mill

He who knows only his own side of the case knows little of that. His reasons may be good, and no one may have been able to refute them. But if he is equally unable to refute the reasons on the opposite side, if he does not so much as know what they are, he has no ground for preferring either opinion … ...He must be able to hear them from persons who actually believe them … he must know them in their most plausible and persuasive form.John Stuart Mill